Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 306 - AT - Central ExcisePenalty on act of omission and commission - CENVAT Credit on the basis of invoices issued by the appellant under which no goods were supplied - Held that:- The facts that the statements were claimed to have been retracted almost 16 days after they were recorded is a clear indication that such retractions was merely an afterthought. If the statement had been recorded under duress, the retraction would have followed immediately. Indeed, there is no basis/ ground mentioned in the appeal to infer that the statements were not voluntary. A bald retraction so late thus doesn't take away evidentiary value of the said statements. In the case of Vinod Solanki Vs. G.O.I (2008 (12) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT ), held that mere retraction of confession is not sufficient to make confessional statement irrelevant. It has been held by Supreme Court in the case of K.I. Pavunny Vs. Astt Collector Cochin [1997 (2) TMI 97 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] that confessional statement, if found voluntarily, can form the sole basis for conviction. Needless to say that rigor of evidence required for imposition of penalty is less than that required for conviction as for penalty the principle adopted in "preponderance of probability" while for conviction it is beyond “reasonable doubt”. In the present case, the statements are also corroborated by the evidence in the form of vehicle numbers belonging to vehicles which could not transport such goods in such quantities and also the shortage noticed at the end of the person who took credit on the basis of the aforesaid 23 invoices. - Decided against assessee
|